Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From time-to-time we hear this argument (in particularly with barely above minimum wage jobs that are part-time) that people turn down jobs because they will make less than being unemployed. My question is should the state government pay formerly unemployed workers who get paid less than their previous pay while unemployed in order to try and get people to work?
No because unemployment will not last forever it only lasts a finite amount of time and then its gone completely . Once it ends they have nothing which is a lot less that what a steady job will pay. The new job could continue for years. They should be relieved to find a job before unemployment ends ,
No because unemployment will not last forever it only lasts a finite amount of time and then its gone completely . Once it ends they have nothing which is a lot less that what a steady job will pay. The new job could continue for years. They should be relieved to find a job before unemployment ends ,
So why not continue it during the period they would have it to? That 20/30 a paycheck they lose before taxes can be huge. If they have a year left of unemployment, after 26 checks, that is anywhere from $520 to 780 left on the table by taking the job. That is an entire month's rent in a modest apartment or perhaps half of a two-bedroom right there.
I thought most jobs pay way more then most unemployment? I remember unemployment being a lot less then a real salary . Unless the person has to take a pay cut just to get a job. I hope at least there are some other benefits to the job that make up for it.
I know if that happened and the government continued to pay unemployment after the employee got a job and the new employer found out they were still sending unemployment checks to the new employee, would the company think they didn't have to start to pay a salary until the unemployment checks were over?
I thought most jobs pay way more then most unemployment? I remember unemployment being a lot less then a real salary . Unless the person has to take a pay cut just to get a job. I hope at least there are some other benefits to the job that make up for it.
I know if that happened and the government continued to pay unemployment after the employee got a job and the new employer found out they were still sending unemployment checks to the new employee, would the company think they didn't have to start to pay a salary until the unemployment checks were over?
Well this does happen more so now with the push towards under 30 hours push based on the legislation that created Obamacare making full-time an actual number (that being 30) rather than being vague between different companies. A Part-time working under 30 hours could hit that depending on the local wage. New York (state) for example has the maximum unemployment at $405 and a minimum wage of $8 so for someone at minimum wage would have to work 51 hours at minimum wage (or 47 hours with overtime) to equal the amount of the maximum. At 28 hours a week, the New Yorker would have a gross pay cut of $181 if they were paid the maximum. By comparison, Arizona's maximum is $240 and minimum wage is $7.90 so you would need to work just over 30 hours to match the maximum.
Well this does happen more so now with the push towards under 30 hours push based on the legislation that created Obamacare making full-time an actual number (that being 30) rather than being vague between different companies. A Part-time working under 30 hours could hit that depending on the local wage. New York (state) for example has the maximum unemployment at $405 and a minimum wage of $8 so for someone at minimum wage would have to work 51 hours at minimum wage (or 47 hours with overtime) to equal the amount of the maximum. At 28 hours a week, the New Yorker would have a gross pay cut of $181 if they were paid the maximum. By comparison, Arizona's maximum is $240 and minimum wage is $7.90 so you would need to work just over 30 hours to match the maximum.
Well if they want to hold off on getting a job until their unemployment is just about to run out that is their choice, their decision . Still if the job doesnt start right away or they do not manage to find a job quickly enough they run the risk of running out of money. Some may try to get a job being paid under the table while keeping their unemployment. That is also risky of course.
Well if they want to hold off on getting a job until their unemployment is just about to run out that is their choice, their decision . Still if the job doesnt start right away or they do not manage to find a job quickly enough they run the risk of running out of money. Some may try to get a job being paid under the table while keeping their unemployment. That is also risky of course.
But why should they be economicaly punished for taking a job?
But why should they be economicaly punished for taking a job?
I think the main problem is all these lousy low paying part time jobs. Allowing companies to not pay health insurance for part time employees was a big mistake. These companies are only hurting themselves in the end. A well treated employee is better at their job and stays at the company longer. A badly treated employee is angry, resentful and will leave as soon as they can, forcing the company to pay to train somebody else all over again. The attitude of the companies need to change.
I agree it is a bad situation. I just think that the job opportunities need to improve more than changes in unemployment.
I think the main problem is all these lousy low paying part time jobs. Allowing companies to not pay health insurance for part time employees was a big mistake. These companies are only hurting themselves in the end. A well treated employee is better at their job and stays at the company longer. A badly treated employee is angry, resentful and will leave as soon as they can, forcing the company to pay to train somebody else all over again. The attitude of the companies need to change.
I agree it is a bad situation. I just think that the job opportunities need to improve more than changes in unemployment.
I think the job opportunities do need to change. I also think that we as a nation need to change the idea of looking at welfare and unemployment not as a cliff, but as a hill. If someone makes more below the cutoff for welfare than they would a higher wage job by say a dollar, it might not be mathematically doable to the take the job sure to the loss from the welfare programs.
So why not continue it during the period they would have it to? That 20/30 a paycheck they lose before taxes can be huge. If they have a year left of unemployment, after 26 checks, that is anywhere from $520 to 780 left on the table by taking the job. That is an entire month's rent in a modest apartment or perhaps half of a two-bedroom right there.
I know this is kind of beside your point, but nobody has "a year left of unemployment" at this point. Most states are at 26 weeks at this point. The most generous state is Massachusetts at 30 weeks and Georgia is the shortest at 18 weeks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
